He's a very good player but honestly I don't think he'll be half the player Diego was.E7IX3R wrote:
Okay, find me a 20 year old that could do this:
and this
I think at 20 years old, he is a phenominal player. There are some players who've played all their life and are still nowhere near as good as rooney. I think he'll become better than diego hasbeen maradonna.
If you're a united fan, remember those two goals against middlesborough where he lobbed the keeper from about 40 yeards? I still think its the best goal he's scored and I saw it live too, I was right behind the united goal
anteManc
I'd take Maradona in his prime over anyone playing today.
Mano de Dios?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-09-19 17:11:41)
Teams win championships. Not players.CruZ4dR wrote:
Wow I could hardly disagree more. Sure Italy can win the Word Cup but they don't have a good team in my opinion. Buffon, Cannavaro and Camoranesi are the only players I may like, but they haven't got any "joga bonito" playersBMW330i wrote:
Italia > all those players you just listed.
FORZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AZZZZZZZZZZZZZURRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Or in France's case bribing refs.
Oh sorry, this isn't the "joga bonito" thread?BMW330i wrote:
Teams win championships. Not players.CruZ4dR wrote:
Wow I could hardly disagree more. Sure Italy can win the Word Cup but they don't have a good team in my opinion. Buffon, Cannavaro and Camoranesi are the only players I may like, but they haven't got any "joga bonito" playersBMW330i wrote:
Italia > all those players you just listed.
FORZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AZZZZZZZZZZZZZURRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Or in France's case bribing refs.
Go make a thread about overrated teams, then talk about Italy.
Overated? They WON the world cup.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Oh sorry, this isn't the "joga bonito" thread?BMW330i wrote:
Teams win championships. Not players.CruZ4dR wrote:
Wow I could hardly disagree more. Sure Italy can win the Word Cup but they don't have a good team in my opinion. Buffon, Cannavaro and Camoranesi are the only players I may like, but they haven't got any "joga bonito" players
Or in France's case bribing refs.
Go make a thread about overrated teams, then talk about Italy.
The same way the US is WINNING the war on terror, right?BMW330i wrote:
Overated? They WON the world cup.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Oh sorry, this isn't the "joga bonito" thread?BMW330i wrote:
Teams win championships. Not players.
Or in France's case bribing refs.
Go make a thread about overrated teams, then talk about Italy.
okay ladies, enough handbags.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.
NFL > soccer
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agree. We'll see in 2010, but I don't think Rooney would become a legend.He's a very good player but honestly I don't think he'll be half the player Diego was.
To the best goalkeepers :
So what? They play a terrible to see football, you can fall sleep in the first half.BMW330i wrote:
Overated? They WON the world cup.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Oh sorry, this isn't the "joga bonito" thread?BMW330i wrote:
Teams win championships. Not players.
Or in France's case bribing refs.
Go make a thread about overrated teams, then talk about Italy.
Seriously you don't have a clue what you 're talking here. Maradona was ten times what Pele was, and he could play in PL, Calcio, Argentina, Spain today and he'd be the best player again dude.E7IX3R wrote:
okay ladies, enough handbags.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.
Stop trying to compare players from different eras, it just doesn't work. The game was different, the tactics different, the technology different, the professionalism, the pace, the competition.sergeriver wrote:
Seriously you don't have a clue what you 're talking here. Maradona was ten times what Pele was, and he could play in PL, Calcio, Argentina, Spain today and he'd be the best player again dude.E7IX3R wrote:
okay ladies, enough handbags.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.
All the players where and are good, but comparisons can just not be made 'opinion' free due to differences mentioned above.
Who was better?
Schumacher or Senna
Doohan, Rossi or Rainy
Ali or Tyson
Nicholas or Woods
Federer or Sampras
Seriously stop bitching, and accept they played at different times and you have NO basis for comaprison.
And anyway Friedreich was better then them all considering his situation.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2006-09-20 07:34:55)
Maradona played until 1997, it's not other era.DrunkFace wrote:
Stop trying to compare players from different eras, it just doesn't work. The game was different, the tactics different, the technology different, the professionalism, the pace, the competition.sergeriver wrote:
Seriously you don't have a clue what you 're talking here. Maradona was ten times what Pele was, and he could play in PL, Calcio, Argentina, Spain today and he'd be the best player again dude.E7IX3R wrote:
okay ladies, enough handbags.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.
All the players where and are good, but comparisons can just not be made 'opinion' free due to differences mentioned above.
Who was better?
Schumacher or Senna
Doohan, Rossi or Rainy
Ali or Tyson
Nicholas or Woods
Federer or Sampras
Seriously stop bitching, and accept they played at different times and you have NO basis for comaprison.
And anyway Friedreich was better then them all considering his situation.
Schumacher
Rossi
Tyson
Woods
Federer
The next best thing
The next next best thing (I saw a better video, but it had music by the Black Eyed Peas )
Really nice videos. Riquelme is a very talented player.
There you go again comparing people who just can't be compared.sergeriver wrote:
Maradona played until 1997, it's not other era.DrunkFace wrote:
Who was better?
Schumacher or Senna
Doohan, Rossi or Rainy
Ali or Tyson
Nicholas or Woods
Federer or Sampras
Schumacher
Rossi
Tyson
Woods
Federer
As for your answers, I don't know how you came to your conclusion but quite frankly your wrong.
Senna was a much better driver then Schumacher. He didn't win as many races, championships or money. But he was also not in the best car, he had better competition and cars back then required more driver input then todays. Not to mention he was killed in a freak accident which reduced his potential for setting Schumacher's records. Senna's real skill was how he completely outclassed the field when ever it was raining where driver ability is much more important then mechanical engineering and performance.
Rossi, Doohan and Rainy is a much harder decision. Rainy was a master and was also taken out the sport due to a freak accident. He also had competitors like doohan, Sheene etc which quite frankly outclass most of todays moto GP field. Rossi came though 125s and 250s with very a very good reputation, and when moved to 500s was put straight into Doohan's old team on the best bike. He has skill no doubt but could he match it with the best on lesser equipment, again what doohan did for much of his early career. When the rules changed from 500cc to Moto GP, Rossi got 1 of the few 4 stroke engine bikes that are much easier to handle and ride Than the older style 2 stoke and at most times faster. Making that 1 championship almost a certainty.
Tyson or Ali. Tyson was the youngest ever heavy weight champion and yes had some hard competition to get it. But he just didn't have the what Ali did. Ali is almost world widely recognised as the worlds best ever heavy weight boxer. But we will never know how he would handle a fight with Tyson. But we know he could take the blows, we know he could dodge the blows and we know he can hit as hard as anyone.
Woods and Nicholas. Woods may be a better golfer, But technology in club and balls has come so far in the past 20-30 years making the game much 'easier' to predict. Gives Woods the technology that Nicholas used and see if he can replicate his scores. I'll concede on this point because Woods is just that good, but I wont say there's not going to be definitive proof.
Federer or Sampras. Well personally I think Agassi was the worlds best tennis player. Right now there are just not any great players going around, but when Sampras was playing there were more competition. I really shouldn't comment because I just hate federer.
To finish off, you must take into consideration that older era sports people played there respective sports as a sport not as a job. Todays professionals train every day, have better dietary knowledge, better equipment and most of all spend most of there waking life to be the best at what they do. Where older era sportsmen had another job and competed almost purely out of talent not from hard training. Does this make modern sportsmen better? Well in the technical sense yes, but in reality you will never know.
Senna was a tribune racer, which means he raced to give show to spectators, while Schumacher doesn't, he just drives his car without mistakes to the victory always. Schumacher is less a showman than Senna was, but he is definitely the best F1 racer in the history, and I'm Argentine, don't forget Fangio, 5 Championships.DrunkFace wrote:
There you go again comparing people who just can't be compared.sergeriver wrote:
Maradona played until 1997, it's not other era.DrunkFace wrote:
Who was better?
Schumacher or Senna
Doohan, Rossi or Rainy
Ali or Tyson
Nicholas or Woods
Federer or Sampras
Schumacher
Rossi
Tyson
Woods
Federer
As for your answers, I don't know how you came to your conclusion but quite frankly your wrong.
Senna was a much better driver then Schumacher. He didn't win as many races, championships or money. But he was also not in the best car, he had better competition and cars back then required more driver input then todays. Not to mention he was killed in a freak accident which reduced his potential for setting Schumacher's records. Senna's real skill was how he completely outclassed the field when ever it was raining where driver ability is much more important then mechanical engineering and performance.
Rossi can race in a skate and he'll win anyway.DrunkFace wrote:
Rossi, Doohan and Rainy is a much harder decision. Rainy was a master and was also taken out the sport due to a freak accident. He also had competitors like doohan, Sheene etc which quite frankly outclass most of todays moto GP field. Rossi came though 125s and 250s with very a very good reputation, and when moved to 500s was put straight into Doohan's old team on the best bike. He has skill no doubt but could he match it with the best on lesser equipment, again what doohan did for much of his early career. When the rules changed from 500cc to Moto GP, Rossi got 1 of the few 4 stroke engine bikes that are much easier to handle and ride Than the older style 2 stoke and at most times faster. Making that 1 championship almost a certainty.
You came up with the Ali Tyson comparison. If I have to choose the best fighter I go with Leonard and Hearns.DrunkFace wrote:
Tyson or Ali. Tyson was the youngest ever heavy weight champion and yes had some hard competition to get it. But he just didn't have the what Ali did. Ali is almost world widely recognized as the worlds best ever heavy weight boxer. But we will never know how he would handle a fight with Tyson. But we know he could take the blows, we know he could dodge the blows and we know he can hit as hard as anyone.
Nicklaus was excellent, you can say that seeing him play today, but I think Woods is the best golfer ever without question, the guy is natural talented. He has hard competition.DrunkFace wrote:
Woods and Nicholas. Woods may be a better golfer, But technology in club and balls has come so far in the past 20-30 years making the game much 'easier' to predict. Gives Woods the technology that Nicholas used and see if he can replicate his scores. I'll concede on this point because Woods is just that good, but I wont say there's not going to be definitive proof.
Federer is not a showman like Agassi, but they played the same time and Agassi played with Sampras, so there is your answer. Federer is a winning machine and his shots are perfect like Sampras shots were, but the guy plays in a way he smashed you. Sampras worked his victories harder than Federer, and today there are excellent players, it's jutst they seem inferior compared to him.DrunkFace wrote:
Federer or Sampras. Well personally I think Agassi was the worlds best tennis player. Right now there are just not any great players going around, but when Sampras was playing there were more competition. I really shouldn't comment because I just hate federer.
Talent and professionalism makes a better sportsman. That is no excuse.DrunkFace wrote:
To finish off, you must take into consideration that older era sports people played there respective sports as a sport not as a job. Todays professionals train every day, have better dietary knowledge, better equipment and most of all spend most of there waking life to be the best at what they do. Where older era sportsmen had another job and competed almost purely out of talent not from hard training. Does this make modern sportsmen better? Well in the technical sense yes, but in reality you will never know.
Don't think any of those are football players Well exept for Schumacher who plays some TV charity matches.
Last edited by CruZ4dR (2006-09-21 07:27:06)
He sucks.CruZ4dR wrote:
Really nice videos. Riquelme is a very talented player.
Really good argumenting there. Caught me off-guard. All I can say is wow.. How do you do it? ..Seriously.. how? I mean, wow.. Impressive, very impressive.sergeriver wrote:
He sucks.CruZ4dR wrote:
Really nice videos. Riquelme is a very talented player.
How a Man Utd fan can talk about Rooney as the greatest ever beats me. Ever heard of Charlton, Best, Law.
For me, George Best is the image of what a football player should be, fast, skillful, brave.
For me, George Best is the image of what a football player should be, fast, skillful, brave.
i would just like to say that the aussies got RIPPED THE FUCK OFF WITH THAT PENALTY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF SECONDS...........The feeling in Fed square on the big screen was amazing, the Italian fans were to scared to celebrate seeing as we outnumbered them by like 10,000...he fucking dived mate he FUCKING DIVED
Last edited by [AD]will_young[G36E] (2006-09-26 11:36:08)
has to be my team sheffield united liverpool v sheffield united 1st day of season 2006 Rob Hulse Sheffield united striker
Be interesting to see just how Teves fairs with the hammers (so far not so good) - not that i'm saying Teves is as good as Maradonna but he is touted to be heir to his throne. by the by way Maradonna and Pele both rate Best as one of the greatest players ever..E7IX3R wrote:
okay ladies, enough handbags.
Maradonna was good yes, but if he was to play in the premiership today i dont think he'd stand a chance. I'm not talking the maradonna now, im talking about the old "good" maradonna.
I think pele was better anyway.